5 ms·

Google makes a good point: if it's illegal to scan emails to serve ads, doesn't that mean it's also illegal to scan emails to filter spam and prioritize email?

by natrius 13y ago

barista 13y ago
scanning for spam does not have to extract the context. Scanning for serving ads probably does?
- vkou 13y ago
  Scanning to apply a filter (Machine-taught, or user-defined) definitely does.
- unreal37 13y ago
  Modern email spam detectors definitely read the contents of the email and even try to extract context through certain words appearing together.
- cynwoody 13y ago
  What does it mean to extract the content? To filter spam, you need to make enough sense of the email to identify it as spammy, according to some algorithm. To serve an ad, you need to make enough sense of the email to indicate it's about something one or more of your advertisers cares about. I can't think of a way to distinguish between the spam robot's access vs the ad robot's.
greenyoda 13y ago
There's a difference: filtering spam and prioritizing mail is something that's done for the benefit of the user. However, scanning e-mails to maximize ad revenue (they can charge the advertisers more for "relevant" ads) is Google using the contents of your e-mail for their own benefit.
- natrius 13y ago
  My hunch is that there's no law that makes such a distinction.
  - gibwell 13y ago
    Then you didn't read the judge's opinion. The wiretapping statue apparently does make such a distinction.
    - Oletros 13y ago
      Judge Koh actually didn't made the distinction, user profiles are also used for spam filtering and she talked about scanning for making user profiles OR targeting ads
- Flenser 13y ago
  Revenue which pays for the FREE service. If the choice was gmail with ads or no gmail I know which I'd choose.
  - dingaling 13y ago
    > Revenue which pays for the FREE service Google also scans e-mails in paid Google Apps accounts. Edit: correction to myself. Whilst paid Google Apps accounts still show ads and Web Clips, Google now have this statement: If you are using Google Apps (free edition), email is scanned so we can display contextually relevant advertising in some circumstances. http://support.google.com/a/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=60762 http://support.google.com/a/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=60762 the implication being that the paid accounts are scanned only for virus, spam and Priority Inbox processing. Sorry, I was wrong.
- georganos 13y ago
  Would making money to pay for the services the users use count as being towards the benefit of the user?
  - 13y ago
gibwell 13y ago
One is to provide a feature for the end user's benefit. The other is taking the user's private communication and using it to make money for Google. If this business model is allowed, imagine all the other kinds of profile that communications providers would be able to sell about you based on the contents of your email.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  "One is to provide a feature for the end user. The other is taking the user's private communication and using it to make money for Google." Assume this is true for a second. I'm not aware of any legal caselaw that has ever drawn such a distinction for the acts in play here. So I guess i don't get while people keep saying this like it should or would matter. (I can't really opine on the case itself for obvious reasons)
  - Amadou 13y ago
    I'm not aware of any legal caselaw that has ever drawn such a distinction for the acts in play here. So I guess i don't get while people keep saying this like it should or would matter. Law is always a distant second to morality. Sometimes it catches up, sometimes it doesn't. But to define what is right by a lack of previously established law is astoundingly naive, bordering on self-serving. Even when there is precedent, it doesn't necessarily define the morality of a situation, e.g. slavery, driving under the influence and women's suffrage among many thousands of examples.
  - gibwell 13y ago
    According to the judge the wiretapping statutes allow only interception that is 'instrumental' to providing the service to the end user, and she specifically stated the opinion that the exception is not intended to be broad enough to permit any arbitrary business model. That's why people keep mentioning it.
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      Ah, thanks. Well then, she'll likely be overturned, unless her circuit feels like making another split. Most other circuits (except two I believe) have explicitly held it to be okay for things like behavioral advertising. See, for example, Kirch v. Embarq Management Co (10th circuit) Given ECPA does not define "ordinary course of business" in any way, and the accompanying senate reports do not say anything about the exception being related to "for the benefit of the end user" (and instead talks entirely about the need/desires of the ISPS using the communications) , I would guess the opinion will have some trouble at the appellate level, but i guess we'll see!
001sky 13y ago
“Google’s alleged interceptions are neither instrumental to the provision of email services, nor are they an incidental effect of providing these services. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the interceptions fall outside Google’s ordinary course of business...” From the e-mail case, but this logic would generate the relevant distinction. Their initial legal positioning seems open to question, but only time will tell.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

Google makes a good point: if it's illegal to scan emails to serve ads, doesn't that mean it's also illegal to scan emails to filter spam and prioritize email?

by natrius 13y ago

Google makes a good point: if it's illegal to scan emails to serve ads, doesn't that mean it's also illegal to scan emails to filter spam and prioritize email?

barista 13y ago

scanning for spam does not have to extract the context. Scanning for serving ads probably does?

vkou 13y ago
Scanning to apply a filter (Machine-taught, or user-defined) definitely does.
unreal37 13y ago
Modern email spam detectors definitely read the contents of the email and even try to extract context through certain words appearing together.
cynwoody 13y ago
What does it mean to extract the content? To filter spam, you need to make enough sense of the email to identify it as spammy, according to some algorithm. To serve an ad, you need to make enough sense of the email to indicate it's about something one or more of your advertisers cares about. I can't think of a way to distinguish between the spam robot's access vs the ad robot's.

greenyoda 13y ago

There's a difference: filtering spam and prioritizing mail is something that's done for the benefit of the user. However, scanning e-mails to maximize ad revenue (they can charge the advertisers more for "relevant" ads) is Google using the contents of your e-mail for their own benefit.

natrius 13y ago
My hunch is that there's no law that makes such a distinction.
- gibwell 13y ago
  Then you didn't read the judge's opinion. The wiretapping statue apparently does make such a distinction.
  - Oletros 13y ago
    Judge Koh actually didn't made the distinction, user profiles are also used for spam filtering and she talked about scanning for making user profiles OR targeting ads
Flenser 13y ago
Revenue which pays for the FREE service. If the choice was gmail with ads or no gmail I know which I'd choose.
- dingaling 13y ago
  > Revenue which pays for the FREE service Google also scans e-mails in paid Google Apps accounts. Edit: correction to myself. Whilst paid Google Apps accounts still show ads and Web Clips, Google now have this statement: If you are using Google Apps (free edition), email is scanned so we can display contextually relevant advertising in some circumstances. http://support.google.com/a/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=60762 http://support.google.com/a/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=60762 the implication being that the paid accounts are scanned only for virus, spam and Priority Inbox processing. Sorry, I was wrong.
georganos 13y ago
Would making money to pay for the services the users use count as being towards the benefit of the user?
- 13y ago

gibwell 13y ago

One is to provide a feature for the end user's benefit. The other is taking the user's private communication and using it to make money for Google. If this business model is allowed, imagine all the other kinds of profile that communications providers would be able to sell about you based on the contents of your email.

DannyBee 13y ago
"One is to provide a feature for the end user. The other is taking the user's private communication and using it to make money for Google." Assume this is true for a second. I'm not aware of any legal caselaw that has ever drawn such a distinction for the acts in play here. So I guess i don't get while people keep saying this like it should or would matter. (I can't really opine on the case itself for obvious reasons)
- Amadou 13y ago
  I'm not aware of any legal caselaw that has ever drawn such a distinction for the acts in play here. So I guess i don't get while people keep saying this like it should or would matter. Law is always a distant second to morality. Sometimes it catches up, sometimes it doesn't. But to define what is right by a lack of previously established law is astoundingly naive, bordering on self-serving. Even when there is precedent, it doesn't necessarily define the morality of a situation, e.g. slavery, driving under the influence and women's suffrage among many thousands of examples.
- gibwell 13y ago
  According to the judge the wiretapping statutes allow only interception that is 'instrumental' to providing the service to the end user, and she specifically stated the opinion that the exception is not intended to be broad enough to permit any arbitrary business model. That's why people keep mentioning it.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    Ah, thanks. Well then, she'll likely be overturned, unless her circuit feels like making another split. Most other circuits (except two I believe) have explicitly held it to be okay for things like behavioral advertising. See, for example, Kirch v. Embarq Management Co (10th circuit) Given ECPA does not define "ordinary course of business" in any way, and the accompanying senate reports do not say anything about the exception being related to "for the benefit of the end user" (and instead talks entirely about the need/desires of the ISPS using the communications) , I would guess the opinion will have some trouble at the appellate level, but i guess we'll see!

001sky 13y ago

“Google’s alleged interceptions are neither instrumental to the provision of email services, nor are they an incidental effect of providing these services. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the interceptions fall outside Google’s ordinary course of business...” From the e-mail case, but this logic would generate the relevant distinction. Their initial legal positioning seems open to question, but only time will tell.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]